The Point of No Return

There are far too many examples of writers putting pen to paper on subjects out of their comfort zone and failing to find the necessary 'heart' because they either don't have a real interest in what they're writing about but feel it is 'current' and they should, or they have no idea how to research and find the authenticity that is needed. Added to that producers who haven't a clue on the subject either and are not discerning enough to pull the script apart, and you are doomed to a very particular kind of failure. Of the 'we really didn't care enough' kind. Writers should write what they know, or are confident in researching. Neither occurred in this instance. There are many much more accomplished films, even short ones, than this where the filmmakers found the required passion in the short narratives they were trying to tell. Camera work in this overly long effort too is pointless - cameras express an observation, or a motivation, or something narratively that audiences are supposed to focus on. The use of the camera here was pretty aimless. Something down to both the director and the cinematographer. And the accents?! Well less said here the better. Completely pulled out of the viewing experience from minute one. World War 2 was the setting for so many exciting and mindblowingly brave stories the filmmakers could have chosen any number to tell utilising British actors and their distinctly British accents. Especially if going out to make a film with your mates. But no, they chose to represent Germans in the mid winter of retreat on the Eastern Front, without snow or landscape that was particularly European yet alone with the cold, bleak tones of winter and desolation. One only has to watch Stalingrad to get a real feel of what it was like for the ordinary German soldier. This felt like a story made for the sake of making a movie. Little or no script development, filmmakers without the necessary experience or knowledge to pull off a war-driven movie, a director who doesn't know how to elicit performance or to generate excitement through camera shot choices, and a cast just going through the motions of what they imagined they should be doing. This feels like a film school project Year 1 assignment piece drawn out to feature length. The Director really needs to hone his craft on shorter pieces, and the Screenwriter really should go back to basics and learn how to research properly, and then to tightly structure a purposeful story for a pleasing, focused, and multi-layered audience experience. War films by their very nature are pretty budget hefty affairs. It's impossible to do one any sort of justice on a short film budget or worse. And certainly not without the proper preparation, research, and development. For a job well done check out Sean Ellis's 'Anthropoid' - a story told at least four times cinematically over the decades, and here told well, even as a remake, with flair and a certain eye on narrative intensity, even though the outcome is known to all. And as tight as that was in terms of locations, set pieces are the production's biggest asset. Lessons needed here, are easily found elsewhere.

Nothing to say in favor, but that it is worthless.....

This movie is just entertainment. It is not based on any actual event except a band of Germans soldiers retreating from the Russian offensive.

The opening minutes I found immediately off-putting, to have the Germans and Russians speaking "the Queens English", but when the commanding officer speaks revealing an American accent.... that sets the distraction for the rest of the movie. The "Lieutenant" as he appears throughout the movies (unsure which actor that is) has an accent that in opening scenes sounds American and then as the movie progresses, seems to fluctuate between Welsh, British and American. While movies such as "Enemy at the Gates", where the actors spoke in their own country of origin accents, the accents were not off-putting as throughout their lines, words of the characters language are mixed in their speech. For example, in this movie, the Germans are saying "$hit" while if they said the German, "$cheissen", this would give the viewer the impression "I am German". Neal Ward who plays Sergeant Bruno Guize has a quite profound northern English accent. The Russians again had English accents and not even the term "Comrade" was used to indicate "I am Russian". I think even a poor attempt at a German accent would have been an improvement so as not have the strong and varied English accents so distracting.

As the Germans retreat in this movie, the obvious lush grassland and heavily wooded forests show that this is not the geography of the real German retreat which was in reality, mass destruction and "scorched earth". This movie does not indicate where they are retreating from, but given the apparent decimation of the Germans, this would have actually been in Winter of 1943/44. There is no snow in this movie nor indication of cold weather. Clearly the vegetation shows Spring or Summer. I am confident this was actually filmed in rural UK somewhere.

Visual Authenticity is strong in this movie. Genuine restored vehicles from the era, correct weapons and the uniforms are correct... except that the Russians are wearing winter uniforms and the Germans standard summer uniforms.

Tactical authenticity is lacking.... many times we see the Germans in close formation while a threat is imminent or while under attack... They should be spread out thinner as would have been the case in reality. The other is bunching up together and lighting up cigarettes while the scout/point member checks out something unusual. That would never have happened in reality. Just one well placed grenade or mortar would have killed the lot, not withstanding the cigarettes to give away their position. As these Germans are in retreat of the portrayed advancing enemy, watch them amble along in the forest at a slow pace is akin to a family taking a casual stroll after a picnic.

My Overall Opinion of the movie - I feel that the interaction of characters in the actual catastrophic retreat and defeat of the Germans is not at all portrayed in this movie. I would say it is "hinted at" but not depicting. I felt that the hostile interactions between the Germans as they retreated were not amplified sufficiently to show that they were falling apart as was the case in actual history. The quality of acting I would not say was bad, but maybe refer to it as very ordinary. I did not think much at all of the camera work... seemed more akin to walking around holding hand-held digital cameras. I thought the script and dialogue overall could have been much better. Overall, I watched in through the end and would not at all say it was a bad movie and not disappointed for having sat through it. An Award Winning movie it is not, but I would not be quick to call it a B-grade movie. If you want to kill an hour or so with not much else to do, this won't disappoint you, but I would not recommend that you go out of your way to watch it. I give it 4 stars, but maybe a bit generous.

They obviously had a shoestring budget and it shows. The writing is second rate as is the acting and the directing. That it was filmed in the leafy lanes of southern England is obvious; the vehicles, uniforms, and weapons are all obvious inaccurate stage props. It has the feeling of a movie made by the Scunthorpe Amateur Dramatics Society who somehow got some money to make a film but they had to use Mrs Minge's back garden as a set and find whatever props they could from the basket back stage at the Town Hall theatre.

Only because of the name watched it. Those who all are going to watch it with lots of expectations be sure you are going to be disappointed.